As the youngest person (I'm positive) on this forum I feel the need to defend my generation: I love antiques. And I would love to have more of them in my home. I feel like I am teaching my friends an appreciation for old things. I wish we could afford more of them. But antiques are expensive ya'll.

Unfortunately, most people just don't care about design at all. They don't care what brand of sofa it is. They want to sit on it and watch TV. They want an easy no fuss buy. They are interested in hiring a designer or shopping around for quality.

Since I (and many fiends) are recent graduates of either college or grad school, living in general is very expense. I have tens of thousands of dollars in school debt and a terrible paying job. That 1000 dollar sofa is expensive. And I need something to sit on.

So, most people buy the stand in and then maybe never get around to buying the real deal. They loose interest in design. They get so busy with children. They never make as much money as they'd hoped.

Someone brought up,young people and their preference for new rather than antique furniture. The area of the country could also be a contributing factor. Here in Austin, I see a fair amount of young people in the antique mall as well as at auctions where antique/ vintage furniture is the norm. I believe there are young people who still appreciate antiques, as well as traditional style furniture. The other day I saw a young man walking around with a hurricane table lamp, another young woman asked about a table in my booth which was painted blue/glazed, as that's the 'standard' for all my furniture. It seems the 'younger ones', especially the girls(the dictators)do prefer vintage furniture, but they prefer it to be painted, rather than in the natural color of the wood, so it's really more about the finish. They see stained furniture as what their parents / grandparents might have had, although the style may still be 'tolerated.'

There are always going to be people who feel wood just shouldn't be painted, but I see it flying out the door at the mall! If I can purchase a dresser for $50, give it a little sprucing up with paint/glaze/poly , and turn around and sell it for $300 or more, I 'll keep on painting the wood. There are buyers who don 't want the cookie cutter PB, Arhaus, and the like, nor do they want to spend that kind of money. What they do want is something more unique that still says vintage, w/o looking old.

"So, most people buy the stand in and then maybe never get around to buying the real deal. They loose interest in design. They get so busy with children. They never make as much money as they'd hoped."

I think these statements are true. And it is becoming clear that a new class of advantage lies not in wealth or social class but in whether or not someone has student loan debt (which by law can never be discharged in bankruptcy) and how much. That one factor can affect the trajectory of a person's career by dictating which job is taken when loans must be repaid. It is almost like a new form of indentured servitude....

Re painted furniture--- I think Patty Cakes has this absolutely right: "What they do want is something more unique that still says vintage, w/o looking old." When we were first married I felt this same way....we filled in with painted pieces (some of which we still have and I love) because they were interesting and unique and relatively cheap!

Selcier I agree with your statement in that there are a lot of people in your situation. But there are also a lot of people in your age group that aren't in your situation and they *still aren't buying furniture I don't think.

I live in a neighborhood that has come up in the world and become trendy in the decades I've lived in it. It is full of recent graduates, graduate school students and pre-children (or pre school-age children) couples. New apartment buildings are being built and it is now chock full of real restaurants instead of diners, luncheonettes, alky bars and porn theatres.

Anyway, we have made a concerted effort to try a lot of these new restaurants. Drinks are $10 a pop. Entrees are $25, etc. We concentrate on small plate restaurants, split entrees and don't order drinks so we can get out of there for maybe $35 a person --and then we can try a new one every week.

Every single night of the week these restaurants are crammed with twenty-somethings, drinking and eating. I imagine there are large segments of the neighborhood who are spending $150 a week eating out, $1000 a month each on rent, and lots of other stuff.

They carry a lot of school debt ($100K + is common), they spend a lot on clothes and entertainment. Their next move up is to an even nicer apartment or condo, or an expensive house in the suburbs. It's a different sub-population than yours, but they *still never buy furniture*. My two employers live in $3M and $900K houses respectively, both drive Porsches and *still don't have decent furniture. The $3M house is 10,000 sq feet and has vast swaths of empty floor space dotted with meh furniture.

palimpsest, do you think those folks lease their Porsches? Doesn't sound like it takes much to get them to part with $. So if the high-end furniture makers don't want to reach out and target those people, and expect those people to go looking for them ... well, seems to me that someone is just leaving money on the table.

Perhaps if not interested in better marketing those furniture makers could consider moving to a lease-consignment business model. That might better cater to the whims of fashion as well as the desire of other folks for quality at a lower price point. Consignment stores in our area seem to have shuttered up over the past decade. And I think there is a segment that would be willing to pay a premium for organized consignment as opposed to Craigslist -- both for convenience and for the assurance that they are not buying low quality lookalikes. I know I would.

Getting back to the OP I had dinner this weekend with an acquaintance who is in the high-end traditional furniture manufacturing business (maybe "to the trade only"). She said her business had fallen off to the point she was thinking of retiring.

Perhaps her product line was diverging from what people who can afford it want and need ... what I see in much of the old-line top end stuff is that they are still furnishing the home of the settled executive with "traditional" taste and a 1990s McMansion.

Most high-paid younger workers are also mobile and if parents, indulgent. They may want quality stuff, but it has to be movable into that 3rd-floor loft and then into the suburban town home, and child and pet-resistant.

They like eclectic, have been told it's trendy, but don't really know how to do it ... help with this and you will make sales. To them, Scandinavian modern IS traditional ... it's older than their parents are and their grandparents probably bought it as new and trendy.

So she needs to introduce smaller scale pieces, multi-function pieces, suites that can mix and match across "name groups" and less of the 9-piece all-matching suite kind of thing.

The showrooms should reflect this ... I walk into Stickly or Henredon's Scottsdale rooms and I see ... suite by suite ... stuff that is too big for my house in all its matchy-matchy boredom.

What a great thread! Wish I had seen this sooner.

I could pretty much have written what 3dogs said. Just about all of our wood pieces (tables, chests, some chairs, etc.) are antique. I love the quality and patina of the old pieces.

My parents taught me to buy the best quality you can afford and we have done that in furniture. My mom and my grandmother both bought well made, good quality sofas and I can remember them having the same sofa for YEARS. There is still one at my grandmother's house that has probably been reupholstered at least 4 times. It is a timeless style. If the springs were not finally starting to wear out, it could be used again.

I also don't believe 20 year old furniture looks dated. There are some things (trendy) that of course would; but timeless, classic styles only need to be refreshed with new upholstery.

"Based on most of the posts here, nearly everyone wants the latest up-to-date look although, of course, not the fads! "

I don't agree with that statement either. I think there are many here who do not care about the latest up-to-date look, color, etc. I am one that would rather have my own style expressed rather than follow the crowd.

Other than our first sofa, we have gone the custom route and have had great success with that. Apparently I am quite picky on fabric. LOL

tina

When I bought my first house 15+yrs ago, I bought LR, kitchen, DR and MBR furniture, all Stickley and Baker, La Barge mirrors and tables, etc like my parents always had. I also bought outdoor furniture by Brown Jordan. To do it all in one fell swoop was as much as the typical starter home in some areas. But it was what I was taught,so I planned for it, and it was an 'investment". I distinctly recall my DH and I buying our DR table together, which to me was as symbolic as getting engaged (we weren't at the time).

Today, I still appreciate the beauty of all these things, but they feel like liabilities, to be honest. It makes no sense to sell them, so I have to fit them in. They were bought for a different style house with different rooms, of course. I have managed to find a way to use most of it, but not always optimally. And I have 10 dining chairs stored in our (climate controlled) basement for want of a place to use something so formal ...

If I had to do it over again, I don't think i'd "invest" (who is kidding who, only very rarely does a layperson buy furniture that would appreciate, first having to get over the hurdle of huge markups) as much. I would try to find more used furniture and or antique, so that it would not kill me to update or change styles.

I walk into Stickly or Henredon's Scottsdale rooms and I see ... suite by suite ... stuff that is too big for my house in all its matchy-matchy boredom

I totally agree with that sense if you look at Stickley's showrooms, but they have actually branched out in their furniture offerings to include some more modern choices. And not everything is huge in scale. It's too bad they are displayed so poorly, in such an unimaginative and matchy-matchy way in the showroom. We bought several pieces from Stickley for rooms throughout our house and none of them are in their "traditional" style and none of them are matchy. But most of the items we bought were not discovered by me from their showroom choices, but rather suggested by the store designer we used who was familiar with their whole catalog and my taste.

But the quality of everything we bought from them has been great, and if you hit them at the times of their biggest sales you can get very good value for your money. When I have shopped there I have seen younger people shopping/buying there, but they could do a much better job making the experience less stuffy and intimidating.

This post was edited by sas95 on Thu, Aug 21, 14 at 10:37

My parents had nothing to pass down. My dad was the youngest of 6. His dad was a math teacher; no extra money. My dad was a priest so nothing was passed to him anyway. My mom came from a more middle-class family. My mom was a nun, so again, nothing, except a very modest DR set was given to her.

I have liked antique furniture since I was a child. My parents had an MCM bedroom set that I disliked. My mom liked Scandinavian Design, and she still has most of that still.

We inherited a bedroom set from my husband's family. So large and not my taste. Very well made, likely from the 80s. Early American. Eventually I replaced it with antique oak furniture, and we have many problems with drawers. Looks better and smaller but not as functional.

Pal, I think the problem is that children are indoors more. We eat only in designated rooms at tables, no Sharpies, etc., but the sofas get so dirty just from body oil. If the kids could run around the neighborhood more (I am paranoid), I bet furniture would hold up longer.

I feel like there is a lot of competition for good, used furniture. CL, Ebay, and Etsy all show there is a market. Deals get snapped up immediately. Maybe most people aren't buying used, but there are enough who are. Thus, even with used furniture, I still can't afford the best.

BTW, I just read the other posts and had some comments. I think that furniture has become more like fashion (because of HGTV and similar, shelter mags, catalogues, etc) and hence is going through shorter cycles. People are less likely to invest because they see it as fashion.

As far as kids, i think its the same issue as guests. Everyone is expected to be careful and respectful, but accidents will happen. If it would truly greatly distress you to have something ruined by an accident, you should not use it to begin with. As DH says "it's the cost of doing business" that something needs to be repaired or cleaned now and again.

Finallyhome:
"the private school share of total enrollments has decreased over the past 15 years, from about 12 percent to 10 percent."

AMCK:
I think entertaining at home has risen; hence huge islands, great rooms, outdoor kitchens. "...consumers today are using their homes as a hub of activity, opening their
doors to their neighbors and family, and expressing their creativity through
home entertainment."

Anele,

Okay, I had to read that twice. Dad was a preist and Mom was a nun? Forget the furniture discussion, I want to pull up a chair and hear more! LOL

Me too Anele! That is fascinating!

I could never be accused of having matchy matchy in my living room. Out of the three new pieces we purchased (all in leather to go with older upholstered pieces) two are a burnished leather and look ancient as though they have been there forever. I have always loved antiques so the old look just seems to fit right in.

I still have some pieces that I have had since starting housekeeping almost 42 years ago and other pieces that were my DM's. They were antiques when I got them and they have aged well. I never felt that they were out of style and they will reside in my home until my body gets carried out feet first or I have to go into assisted living.

I gave all my solid wood DR furniture I inherited from my parents to my DS and DIL, whose house it fits better. They are thrilled. I bought a little "cheapie" table and chairs to do until I figure out what I want to replace it with (DH doesn't care what he sits on as long as he gets fed!) I haven't found anything I really like that has the "heft" of the older traditional furniture without the size. And now we're thinking of putting the house on the market in the next year or two, because I will be retiring at some point in the not-so-distant future and we want to move south, so ... do I buy now for this house or wait to see where we end up? I think that is a dilemma a lot of people are facing as a lot of the population reaches this point.
Edie

Part of the way life is changing is how people choose to display their powers of acquisition.

People will buy large houses with impressive facades (or small houses designed to look bigger with impressive facades) rather than buying something more modest and actually furnishing it. They want to impress people they don't know more than people who actually make it inside the house.

A lot of people will lease very expensive cars and buy clothing with obvious designer labels (and fake designer labels) and have the latest phones and anything that they can carry around to display their discretionary income.

I know of one woman in NYC who has a decent job (over 6 figures which means less in NYC than most places) and wears genuine Chanel and other designers, and eats out at all the trendiest places.

She's not a young woman starting out, she's middle-aged.

Her apartment contains a bed and a TV set. She could buy a reasonable sofa for what she pays for a single Chanel handbag. But no one would be as impressed by a sofa as they are by the beautiful clothes she wears every day.

This is an example taken to the extreme, and maybe she has a table and chair, now, I dunno, this was a couple of years ago.

If you compare this to my mother and some other women of her generation: my mother wore good, well-made clothing but she thought anything with an obvious designer label or insignia on it was "vulgar" and she wouldn't buy it. She complained of her favorite handbags being "Ruined" when they started putting an obvious insignia on them.
She would also tell people that her diamond engagement ring and earrings were fake, if it was someone she didn't know well who asked about them and she thought was drawing attention to them. I think that sort of discretion is dying with that generation. Now so many people need to impress people they don't know on a daily basis.

Since this is a forum for design interested people, I don't think this really applies here...we are interested in having nice houses whether we spend a lot on them or not. But I know people who could buy a decent sofa in a relatively short period of time if they would cut back on expensive eating and drinking, and phone upgrades and completely nonsensical spending on clothing they may never wear and consumables from Target than they bought in bulk because it was on sale. But they won't.

She could buy a reasonable sofa for what she pays for a single Chanel handbag. But no one would be as impressed by a sofa as they are by the beautiful clothes she wears every day.

I agree that there are plenty of people who are only interested in impressing the outside world, but there are also people who love clothes, jewelry, etc. and couldn't care less about furniture. Before I bought my house, we had moved around quite a bit and I wasn't interested in acquiring expensive furniture for a variety of reasons. But I have always loved nice clothes (not clothes emblazoned with designer logos, but well-tailored, fine fabrics, etc.) so that's what I spent my money on. I'm sure people who visited our home-- if they chose to notice the disparity between my choice of clothes and furniture-- could have concluded that I was merely concerned with appearances and I was out to impress strangers, but that was hardly the case. Making assumptions about people's priorities based on this type of assessment, without more, is dangerous, IMO.

I'm sure that at some point people could have drawn comparisons between my meh clothing and my good furniture. But my good furniture was hidden from most people. I get your point, people care about different things. I know people who spend all their money on travel. That's fine.

But I think I can draw a conclusion about someone who has a mattress on the floor and nothing else but carries different $1500 handbags on a daily basis, that she is out to make an impression to the outside world and not be far off the mark. I see nothing dangerous about this assumption at all.

I know people who have to make choices between rent+clothing or furniture and have no furniture, that's different.

But in my example, she was making a purely discretionary decision between Chanel, et al. and No furniture.

I finally plunged into a thread, and what a fascinating read!

I found its increasingly difficult to buy nicer lines of manufactured furniture and that design centers are scaling back. Like in society, the gulf between the low end and mainstream and the upper echelons has widened. And as Pal noted, the newer generations place a lower priority on these things -- actually, anyone younger than Boomers.

Personally, I've found my own purchases moving lower end over the years, even as our ability to pay has risen. I will admit to being dissatisfied with quality, however.

The most interesting thing, however, is Anele's fascinating family history.

What I don't appreciate are the frequent assumptions that the values of a previous generation are either superior to those of subsequent generations, or are no longer appreciated--too much idealization of our parents' and grandparents' generations, and not enough credit to the thoughtful, creative, and resourceful youth that are out there today.

There's a lot that can be explained about our disposable economy and our throw-away furniture that has more to do with the choices of our parents, than the preferences of our youth.

I guess that depends about which generation you mean when you talk about "parents" and "younger".

I think the increasing amount of disposability started with My generation, which was born around the time "back to the earth" and "Earth Day" and "ecology" and "environment" became household words.

KInd of like "fat-free" foods appearing and obesity skyrocketing immediately after.

I don't think the younger generation and their propensity to discard is as much their fault as it is the fault of my particular generation. We raised them to do it.

Consignment stores in our area seem to have shuttered up over the past decade. And I think there is a segment that would be willing to pay a premium for organized consignment as opposed to Craigslist

-Isn't that an oxymoron? If those people were out there who would be willing to pay a premium for organized consignment, why would those consignment stores have been shuttered?

I feel like there is a lot of competition for good, used furniture. CL, Ebay, and Etsy all show there is a market. Deals get snapped up immediately

-There is, when it costs $100 or $200. Nobody's selling this stuff for gobs of money.

But I think I can draw a conclusion about someone who has a mattress on the floor and nothing else but carries different $1500 handbags on a daily basis, that she is out to make an impression to the outside world and not be far off the mark. I see nothing dangerous about this assumption at all.
I know people who could buy a decent sofa in a relatively short period of time if they would cut back on expensive eating and drinking, and phone upgrades and completely nonsensical spending on clothing they may never wear and consumables from Target than they bought in bulk because it was on sale. But they won't

-I see nothing dangerous about it either, but I do think its a misconception. Just because you care more about your furniture and less about your clothes, why shouldn't someone else care more about their clothes (or food or travel, whatever) and less about their furniture?

-I still have some pieces that I have had since starting housekeeping almost 42 years ago

We also set up housekeeping over 40 years ago. 2 years ago, when we sold our suburban home and moved to a city loft, we got rid of nearly every stick of furniture we owned. We wanted new stuff, and we wanted a different style. Gone, and not missed.

>>>>Consignment stores in our area seem to have shuttered up over the past decade. And I think there is a segment that would be willing to pay a premium for organized consignment as opposed to Craigslist
-Isn't that an oxymoron? If those people were out there who would be willing to pay a premium for organized consignment, why would those consignment stores have been shuttered?Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant kind of like the lease/sell back programs that carmakers have. Organized by the major manufacturers themselves to provide legitimacy. "Certified pre-owned Baker sofa" or something like that ;-) They could offer upholstery services, etc. I'm not sure who else would be able to provide the function and have a large enough inventory/volume to make it worthwhile. Just an idea.

I am guessing at least part of the reason some mom & pop consignment storefronts closed up even in wealthy areas like Los Altos and Palo Alto is sparse inventory and difficult rents -- I also think they focused more on jewelry and decorative items (makes sense given their size). Those naturally would be the folks to move to eBay, Etsy, CL . . . That just makes their stuff even more inaccessible to someone like me who actually wants to do some due diligence before making a purchase. Can't just go look, have to make an appointment . . .

This post was edited by Oaktown on Thu, Aug 21, 14 at 18:49

Well, in our area consignment stores will take stuff at simply insane prices. There's one where I looked a few years ago for wheelback Sheraton chairs. She had a set, the same junky ones I could buy in a place like Kirklands, but the consignment shop wanted as much for each chair as a whole set would have cost me at Kirklands. We're not talking Baker here, but Homegoods quality. Those chairs are still sitting there gathering dust.

I'm not surprised consignment stores are closing. Around here they made no attempt to reason with their clients about just how much you can expect to get for used furniture that isn't stylish, and willingly price stuff at or near the same price fit would fetch brand new.

Especially odd when you can get it for almost nothing in a thrift, or for a more reasonable price in a regular antique/estate sale place.

"Part of the way life is changing is how people choose to display their powers of acquisition"

Part of, Part of, Part of, Part of Part of, Part of, Part of, Part of, Part of,

the reason patterns in furniture buying are changing is because of this. No Value Judgment Attached. (In most cases, but yes I am probably judging some of it)

There didn't used to be designer clothes and goods that were identified only because of their label announcing what they are. No such thing as cell phones and portable electronics. Having a house phone was what $20 a month? TV used to be free and tethered to the inside of your house. Now its $100s a month and you can carry it all around. But the change in spending means somewhere less money is spent and I think that One area of this is on furniture and/or on being house proud. Other things have supplanted it.

The ways that people have to spend their discretionary income is changing and in some ways it's much more public. The Chanel woman was an extreme and perhaps Bad example of that type of spending.

I don't think there's a 25-year-old in the country who would trade their smartphone for a sofa. That's just a fact of our culture. (Also, FWIW, I live in a desirable Chicago suburb, and the store that's expanding in our trendy mall is Forever 21. Designer brands are more popular at our "outlet malls", but that's a whole other story. I don't see where today's youth is placing much emphasis on clothing labels.)

Furniture manufacturers (and every other manufacturer, for that matter) need to adapt to what consumers want, but only the lesser quality ones have done so--lazygardens made some excellent points above. So does this presentation I've linked below. For many in the younger generation, a "quality of life" doesn't equate to a massive DR table with matching hutch or a hefty sofa that's built to last 30 years. If you take the time to view the presentation, skip forward to about 2/3 of they way through for his recommendations for multifunctional furniture. Again, perhaps extreme and ahead of its time, but this type of ingenuity is what's appreciated by the 20-somethings, not solid oak and dovetail drawers...

Here is a link that might be useful: Less stuff, more happiness

These days everyone's trying to follow the latest fad all the time and it would be too expensive to buy high quality furniture and replace it as often as people seem to want to. So they'd rather buy something cheap and replace it often than high quality and replace it almost as often just because they want to change styles.

Also, everyone wants everything right away without having to wait for it or save. They'd rather buy something cheap just because they can have it right away than to save for a year to buy something of high quality. The cheap stuff might even look almost as good when it's brand new - and they're too short sighted to realize that in a few years the junk will look like junk where as something of high quality will still look as good as new as long as it was well treated. They'd rather buy cheap things every 2 years than buy good things that would last a lifetime.

Peony4, loved the TED Talks video you linked. I don't think I could live in 420 square feet, but I think we hit our own "sweet spot" with our new house.

This is totally off the subject, but I've attached my favorite TED Talk. It is Amy Cuddy's talk and it is powerful, especially when you hear about her challenges.

Here is a link that might be useful: Amy Cuddy TED Talk

Bbstx - fascinating Ted talk. My profession involved a lot of public speaking, and we used to use an acting coach. I now realize some of what she had us do before going up on stage is very similar! I'm going to have my kids watch that too.

Speaking as a somewhat younger person (ok, somewhat middle aged), my friends definitely don't place a high priority on expensive furniture. They would be more likely to spend big chunks of money on experiences (like a nice dinner out, travel, or kayaking) than expensive stuff for their homes - aside from the computer or tv of course. I approve of this mindset as I think experiences are generally more life-enriching than possessions.

I also think we could think in a different way about people buying homes at the top of their budget and then underfurnishing them. For most people, a house may not be the financially wisest investment, but it's generally decent and stable. It sure has a better return than new, expensive furniture. You will never ever recoup even close to your investment in new furniture. It's sheer consumption spending, like a fast car or a vacation. It can be very pleasurable but it's not something to take on debt for.

In a house purchase, location and amenities tend to drive prices and also tend to have a direct impact on your quality of life. The quality of life increase from a $10,000 couch is a lot more tenuous. Not that I think everyone should live in a huge mansion (I certainly don't). But I also spent a lot less than 10% or even 5% of my house price furnishing it - because we spent almost the top of our house budget to get a nice old house in a great urban location. That was SO much more important to us at the time than making sure it was decorated nicely, I mean, those two priorities weren't even on the same page.

A second chunk of money (10% of house value) went to renovations - but once again, improving the functionality of the house again took precedence over nice things. Bottom line, we have to take our time (and bargain shop!) furnishing our house. That said, I've made a pact to at least try to buy solid wood furniture wherever possible. I prefer vintage (MCM) furniture and it is extremely hard to find in my area. I look at Kijiji (our craigslist) for "teak" "walnut" and "rosewood" every day. Am considering paying the shipping premium to shop on ebay.

Furniture in terms of return on investment is about as bad as a car: it loses half it's value upon delivery.

A house doesn't give that great of a return on investment either, I don't think. Not if you factor in how much you actually pay for it with mortgage interest and how much you pay for upkeep and repairs. Especially if you live in a non-urban, non-expanding area.

But ultimately furniture should provide a place to sit, to sleep and to eat comfortably and a house should provide a place to live, primarily. But I don't think it's a good investment to purchase the same thing repeatedly, either.

I agree that it's a fact of our culture that a 25 year old wouldn't trade a phone for a piece of furniture. At 25 I was not much interested in furniture either. I think that's pretty natural. But the thing that's changing is that I think a larger segment of American society is going to stay disinterested in permanence. I probably know a weird subset of people but the Chanel woman I mentioned is middle-aged, and high income, not a young person starting out. And I have other friends that are older than I am --in their fifties, and gainfully and adequately employed, and they don't have much of anything "permanent" to show for it--including savings for retirement. And while some people thrive on an unencumbered life, for some of my friends it seems to have left them a bit disaffected and rootless, as if this unencumbered life just "happened" and was not a conscious choice.
Of course I don't think that having a good sofa is the answer.

This post was edited by palimpsest on Thu, Aug 21, 14 at 22:41

I first heard Amy Cuddy talking about The Talk on Public Radio. I think it is fantastic! I always tear up at the part about her personal challenges (I want everyone to watch it, so I'm being a little cagey about the "challenges"). I've sent it to my child and my niece and nephew.

Thanks for that link, BBstx, I sent it to a few peoples who I know will benefit from it. It seems like a very practical manifestation of this idea expressed by Mahatma Gandhi:

âÂÂCarefully watch your thoughts, for they become your words. Manage and watch your words, for they will become your actions. Consider and judge your actions, for they have become your habits. Acknowledge and watch your habits, for they shall become your values. Understand and embrace your values, for they become your destiny.âÂÂ

And so what we think, we become, and what we express non verbally as well.

I would love high end furniture and adore my antique dressers but cannot see spending that type of money when I can be comfortable with more affordable pieces.

super quote, KSWL, thanks for passing it along

I think one thing that has changed, and that has had a huge impact on how people decorate their homes, is the speed with which trends and styles move these days.

In decades past, trends moved more slowly. The sofa you bought today would still look fresh and in style 10 years later. But today, even with large, expensive pieces like sofas, the styles are changing faster and faster.

So if you want your house to look "current," you need to replace your furniture more often. Instead of what my parents and grandparents did, which was to buy a sofa and consider their sofa shopping done, perhaps for the rest of their lives.

There are those who think it necessary to change out the furniture in their rooms at least every 5 years, and completely redecorate from flooring to paint to curtains. This is my (ex) sister-in-law. She was upset that her kids got upset when she tried to re-do their rooms. They loved their comforters and beds and didn't want new ones, while she looked at the same furnishings and only saw "old, out-dated."

She repaints her kitchen a new color yearly, and tosses out all the decorative accessories (and there are a lot, it's a big kitchen) and buys all new ones. She's been in her house 12 years, and the first floor has seen three complete re-dos--wallpaper, furniture, fabrics, accessories.

When you are buying furniture that often, you don't want investment pieces, you want something that looks good short-term, but ages rapidly enough so that when you are tired of it, it looks worn enough that you don't feel bad about throwing it out.

Me, I have my great-grandparents' bookcase and my other grandparents' armchair in the living room. Both still going strong, and over 75 years old.

I love older things too. I have the solid oak bookcase my grandfather made in junior high shop class about 80 years ago, and quite a few other sentimental furniture pieces he made. At some point I have to save up the cash to get them all refinished - he was good on construction but man, he didn't put a lot of time into the finishing. Just for example, I have a solid birds eye maple dresser he made for me, I can't even guess how much that wood must have cost, and the whole thing is covered in about 1/8" thick, rough poly.

This post was edited by robotropolis on Fri, Aug 22, 14 at 9:07

robo, how lucky you are to have such wonderful pieces from your grandfather. I am pleased for you that you recognize the underlying importance of the piece instead of just looking at the finish and dismissing it.

Are you in a place where you can strip the piece and french polish it? It would add another layer of family history to the chest. Your grandchild could say, "this chest was built by my great great grandfather and the french polish was applied by my grandmother/father" (I don't know your gender)

I have a friend who is a fantastic woodworker, too (retired engineer so all is very precisely done). Like your grandfather, the building of the object is much more important to him than the finishing of it.

Here is a link that might be useful: How to french polish

As an aside, at one time we were "into" antiques. We didn't have any money then, but we bought a couple of very nice pieces (not necessarily valuable) - an American oak dresser and mirror, and a hallstand. We used the dresser sans mirror in the hall in our previous home for years, but the hallstand lived in the attic. Last year, I listed both on Craigslist. The highest offer I got was $50. I ended up giving them away to an elderly person who needed something for her new place at an assisted living facility. I have no idea what they cost originally, but as far as the marketplace goes, they had no dollar value in 2014.

I think palimpsest might have a point that it's all about impressing people.

But I think that was true as much in the past as it is today. Someone mentioned an uncle who was a Detroit executive who had fancy furniture because they hosted fancy parties. Even people employed in lower levels cared about their furniture because of the entertaining aspect. We HAD formal living rooms that nobody in the family ever entered, they were for guests only. Now that we're no longer entertaining at home very much, we no longer need the fancy furniture to impress others. Now we need the stuff we carry or drive to be what impresses.

But people "back in the day" were just as much about impressing.

If anything, they were MORE concerned with outward appearances back then. Why else would a man of the 50s never leave the house without a jacket and tie, but now it's hard to get some of them to ensure their shirt at least has no holes?

I'm not sure what the difference between impressing with your clothes or house is but pretty sure the clothes are cheaper even if you carry a Birken. But at least with house impressions, generally, the furniture is comfortable. Maybe.

I often tend to think that those with nice houses could/should buy much better clothes.

I am not trying to say that one form of doing something to impress is better than another form, but one is more public than the other.

You may have a $26,000 sofa or you may have a $26,000 Birkin Bag--or whatever they cost now. Any stranger on the street who recognizes Hermes will see the bag, only people who are well enough acquainted to be invited into your living room will see the sofa--and the people you invited into your house are more likely to be like you than a stranger on the street. They may have their own $26,000 sofa and think nothing of yours.

My point is that people had more strangers into their homes 50 years ago than they do today. Maybe not strangers, but work acquaintances, neighbours, parents of other children, etc.

They might have their own $26k sofa, but all the more reason that you need one. You wouldn't want them comparing your $500 sofa to their $26k one.

"My point is that people had more strangers into their homes 50 years ago than they do today. Maybe not strangers, but work acquaintances, neighbours, parents of other children, etc."

I don't agree with the above, and I think it depends upon more on your location, personality, style of entertaining, etc, than it does on anno domini. When our kids were small we hosted tons of events for school, birthday parties, etc. When I was active in service organizations we had committee meetings and parties in our homes, and people have always hosted church events at home. Now we are on kid's college and alumni committees and purely social events as well. We don't entertain nonstop, but often enough that I still want the house to look as nice as possible, not to "make an impression" but to provide a lovely and comfortable background for social interactions.

Duplicate post

This post was edited by kswl on Sat, Aug 23, 14 at 5:48

"You wouldn't want them comparing your $500 sofa to their $26k one. "
Seriously, this is why you would spend an INSANE amount of money on a COUCH? WOW.

It's hyperbole.....very few people spend that much money on a sofa.

$26,000 came up because it's the approximate price of an iconic handbag.

I wonder if more people have the bag, or more people spend that on a sofa. I'm guessing the bag, nowadays.

Wow. Interesting discussion, I only had time to skim. As other people touched on, this is all part of a broader cultural shift. For example I know a very upper middle class in the suburbs of Philly. Certainly not "philistines" - I think he went to a good engineering school, she went to Smith. They have a nice > 1 million house, but not a historic one. It's tasteful new construction. But I can tell the furniture isn't Baker or Henredon quality. OTOH, they have about 3 huge flat screen TVs on their first level - in the family room, kitchen, and study, and obviously one in their bedroom. They have Showtime, HBO and all the other premium channels, which means they spend, what $200 a month just on TV? And obviously everyone has a smart phone with an expensive data plan. My point is people have different priorities these days...the prestigious of furniture just isn't one of them. I loved the anecdote about waiting for prices to drop. Reminds me of my Mom in the late 80s who told us at the dinner table for a couple months about how she was trying to get a better price on a Labarge coffee table. She finally did.

Worth mentioning on a forum called gardenweb btw - that the same thing is happening in horticulture. People used to be willing to shell out for "prestige" plants from "prestige" nurseries. Not anymore, or not nearly to the extent they used to. A few years ago I called around Philly area nurseries - some like Waterloo are gone now of course - and was shocked how hard it was to find cultivars of European Beech. Whereas as recently as about 1998, when Styers (the original, before the series of buyouts culminating with the purchase by Urban Outfitters) first posted a list of available plants online, they had many many cultivars and I remember stopping in to see them when I visited relatives in the Philly area.

Interesting thread, though an old one. Craig's List allows folks to buy beautifully crafted old furniture for a fraction of the original price. A year or two ago, we bought a Hancock and Moore burgundy/red leather chippendale camel back sofa on CL for $275 a style that was at the time, still sold, LISTING for over $7000 (MSRP for whatever that's worth). While it's not the most comfortable sofa in the house, and it does look dated, the lines are clean and the leather is gorgeous. The cushion has springs. We use it each and every day. It's 20 years old and is in gently-used condition because it is so very well made. Perfectly matches our gem-toned plaid Penn House wing back chairs. It belong to the father of the young woman who sold it, her home was filled with furniture from Pottery Barn. Lucky me!